Last September, New Yorker Kelly Gunn went to court to argue that she should be considered a legal parent and gain parental rights to the son her ex-partner adopted in 2011. Last week, she lost her case, but she is now planning to appeal. It’s a complex story that was made possible after a different case led to a new, broader definition of “parent” in New York last fall.

Gunn was in a relationship with Circe Hamilton when they started planning an adoption. The couple split up before the adoption agency had identified Abush, the seven-year-old boy who later became Hamilton’s son. But Gunn still felt like Abush was her son too. She argued in court that her participation in the adoption planning, as well as her support and care after Abush arrived, should qualify her as a legal parent.

On the other side of the argument, Hamilton said that their joint adoption plan ended when they broke up. She claimed that Gunn’s role in her and her son’s life after the breakup was more like that of a close friend or maybe a godmother.

In Gay Rights Case, Woman to Appeal for Parental Rights to Ex-Partner’s Son https://t.co/k7lVw6Mn80 pic.twitter.com/4hdYdqxuWC

— Sara Buitrago (@x3aamphv) April 20, 2017

The case is possible thanks to a decision authored by recently deceased Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam. In a ruling last August, the New York State Court of Appeals decided that a person who is not related by blood to, or the legal adoptive parent of, a child can still ask for custody rights. The ruling came after a case in which another unmarried gay couple, named as Brooke S.B. and Elizabeth A. C.C. in court documents, had a child together.

Elizabeth was impregnated through artificial insemination in 2008. After giving birth to a boy, the three of them lived together as a family until 2010, when the women’s relationship ended. Three years after that, Elizabeth tried to sever Brooke’s ties with their son and didn’t let them have any contact. When Brooke sued for visitation rights, a lower court turned her down, as the law didn’t accept a non-adoptive caretaker with no biological ties to the child as a parent.

But the appeals court overturned the ruling on August 30. Judge Abdus-Salaam wrote that the legal definition of a parent was outdated and didn’t fit how many of us view “family” today. They considered the law especially unsustainable since New York started allowing same-sex marriage in 2011. The ruling stated:

Where a partner shows by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive a child and to raise the child together, the nonbiological, nonadoptive partner has standing to seek visitation and custody.

But the Gunn and Hamilton case is more complicated. The couple never married, and they did not conceive the child together. By the time they split up, they had only planned to adopt a child, but knew no other details. Gunn decided to seek custody because Hamilton was planning on moving to her home country of Great Britain with Abush.

One of Hamilton’s lawyers raised the issue that New York State’s new, expanded definition of parental rights could also be very scary for parents. It could open up arguments for trusted people close to the family to claim parental rights. But it doesn’t allow someone to gain those parental rights too easily–according to the judge in this case, Frank P. Nervo, Gunn didn’t provide sufficient evidence that she had played the role of a parent, and that was why she lost the case.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Woman Seeking Parental Rights to Ex-Partner’s Son Continues Legal Battle appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this month, reports came out stating that over a hundred gay men had recently gone missing in Chechnya, a Russian territory in Eastern Europe. The Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta claimed that gay men had been “illegally detained, beaten, tortured with electric shocks” by officials. They were then allegedly locked up in secret prisons, including one former military facility. Now several media outlets have referred to these prisons as de facto concentration camps, after claims that inhabitants are regularly tortured and killed.

Though the exact situation is hard to glean, and proof would be hard to obtain, what is clear is that Chechen officials have a problem with gay people. The official response to the accusations is baffling–a spokesperson for the republic’s leader Ramzan Kadyrov said that the reports were “absolute lies and disinformation,” not because he condemned the atrocity of the reports, but because he claimed there are no gay people in Chechnya. “You cannot detain and persecute people who simply do not exist in the republic,” he told the Interfax news agency.

He also claimed that had there been “such people” in Chechnya, their families and relatives would already have sent them “somewhere from which there is no returning.” Chechnya is a strictly conservative region and the majority of occupants are Sunni Muslims. Kadyrov has been criticized previously for forcing women to wear hijabs in public places, encouraging polygamy, and starting two conflicts.

Reports Say That Gay Men Are Being Held in Concentration Camps in Chechnya https://t.co/E5orv8yzKV pic.twitter.com/l1Qh5josHX

— The Mary Sue (@TheMarySue) April 10, 2017

Human Rights Watch says the group has received information from reliable sources, including sources “on the ground,” that corroborates the information about detentions and torture. In a statement on its website, the group’s Russia Program Director Tanya Lokshina says that the number of sources and consistency of the stories leave her with no doubt that they are true. However, she wrote, she couldn’t reveal any details about the sources’ stories, for fear of repercussion against them.

People reacted strongly to the news and many questioned why this subject isn’t being given more attention.

Kadyrov denying gay concentration camps in Chechnya by saying ‘those people don’t exist in the republic’ is terrifying. Talk about this. pic.twitter.com/zs9yyxsqNo

— Meg V. Jones (@ItsMegNotMegan) April 11, 2017

What’s happening in #Chechnya today is literally what the Nazis did. Rounding up, torturing, and killing gay people. It’s abhorrent

— Ferenc G. Koszorus (@fgkoszorus) April 11, 2017

I’m calling on @nikkihaley to speak up against the reported #LGBTQ concentration camps in Chechnya. RT to join me. https://t.co/NM05ag67fA

— Sarah Kate Ellis (@sarahkateellis) April 11, 2017

A spokesman for Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said that the government would look into the matter, but didn’t provide any details about what would be done. He also suggested that any individuals that have suffered abuses should file a complaint and go to court. But that would be basically impossible to do in Chechnya. Lokshina from Human Rights Watch says,

These days, very few people in Chechnya dare speak to human rights monitors or journalists even anonymously because the climate of fear is overwhelming and people have been largely intimidated into silence. Filing an official complaint against local security officials is extremely dangerous, as retaliation by local authorities is practically inevitable.

One of the harrowing accounts explains how a man was beaten with a hose and tortured with electricity to confess that he was gay. He said he was locked in a room with 30 others and that security officials told him the crackdown orders came from the republic’s leaders. Gay people are also sometimes shunned and killed by their own families in Chechnya.

Gay men have reportedly started fleeing the region and deleting their social media accounts. For now the outlook is grim, but at least an LGBT group in St. Petersburg, where the gay community is relatively strong, has set up an anonymous hotline that gay Chechens can call if they need help.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Reports Claim that Chechnya Has Created Gay Concentration Camps appeared first on Law Street.

Bryan Fischer, host of the talk radio program “Focal Point,” made a statement on Twitter over the weekend claiming that gay people have stolen the rainbow from God. Citing the Bible passage Genesis 9:11-17, Fischer called the rainbow flag the “worst example of cultural appropriation ever.” Considering Fischer posted the tweet the day after April 1, it could have been seen as an April Fools’ Day joke. But that does not seem to be the case.

Worst example of cultural appropriation ever: LGBTs stole the rainbow from God. It’s his. He invented it. Gen. 9:11-17. Give it back.

— Bryan Fischer (@BryanJFischer) April 2, 2017

A lot of people responded with their own interpretations of who actually stole the rainbow.

@BryanJFischer oh no, the loathsome gays, they’re hoarding all the light refracted through water vapor in the entire world!!!

— Nate Bethea (@inthesedeserts) April 2, 2017

Many of us know that Super Mario Kart had a track made of rainbows.

Worst example of cultural appropriation ever: LGBTs stole the rainbow from Mario. It’s his. He invented it. Super Mario Kart. Give it back. pic.twitter.com/YLqaN0hdnW

— Joshua MacDougall (@FreakinClever) April 2, 2017

Could it have been the Care Bears?

“Give it back.” pic.twitter.com/9QDJHVGuIu

— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) April 2, 2017

While we’re at it, it’s more than rainbows that are being stolen.

Worst example of cultural appropriation ever: Steve Jobs stole the apple from God. It’s his. He invented it. Gen. 2:2-6. Give it back.

— ㅤ ㅤ ㅤㅤ ㅤleo (@nyazamada) April 3, 2017

Maybe Fischer should think more before speaking his mind.

worst example of cultural appropriation ever: white people stole jesus christ from the middle east. he was jewish and brown. give him back. https://t.co/FuYdT8juiL

— pipit (@seasaltpip) April 2, 2017

Fischer’s statement follows the death of the man who actually created the LGBTQ community’s rainbow flag, Gilbert Baker. He passed away quietly in his sleep last Thursday, at the age of 65. Baker created a bunch of different flags and advocated for gay rights while he was stationed in San Francisco. Even though he was there to serve in the army in the 1970s, he also was an anti-war advocate. He created the rainbow flag for the first openly gay man who was elected for office in California, Harvey Milk, in 1978.

Rest in peace Gilbert Baker – creator of the rainbow flag. A perfect symbol for unity and pride. pic.twitter.com/VDag5KEv6Z

— Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) March 31, 2017

Bryan Fischer’s views are so extreme that the church where he was serving as a pastor kicked him out. He has blamed gay men for the Holocaust, called for the criminalization of homosexuality, a permanent ban on Muslim immigration, and has made many more extreme comments. He has said Hillary Clinton was possessed by a demon and said Sarah Palin’s joke about waterboarding was “clever and funny,” since “waterboarding is not torture.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bryan Fischer Wants the LGBTQ Community to Give the Rainbow Back to God appeared first on Law Street.

In 1948, H. Edward Spires was discharged as “undesirable” from the military because he was gay. On Friday, his discharge was finally updated to “honorable,” after almost 70 years. “My first thought was, ‘it’s about time,” Spires said on Monday. “I can lift my head again.” One of the law students who worked on the case, Erin Baldwin, doesn’t know why the Air Force changed its mind, since Spires has requested the change several times. “I’m not sure we can say with certainty but it was helpful that he had support from a lot of different places,” she said.

When the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which banned openly homosexual soldiers from serving in the military, was repealed in 2011, Spires became qualified to ask to upgrade his discharge. But the Air Force claimed that a 1973 fire had destroyed his military records, and denied his application. In November, a group of law students from the Yale Veterans Legal Services Clinic helped Spires and his husband David Rosenberg, who is also a veteran, file a federal lawsuit. Spires is currently recovering from pneumonia, which made the issue even more pressing.

Finally, the military granted his request. In a letter signed last Thursday, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records acknowledges Spires’ request and writes, “Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice.”

Gay Air Force veteran honorably discharged 68 years later https://t.co/0EWoeTjF5K pic.twitter.com/KxriaCM5rX

— Hartford Courant (@hartfordcourant) January 9, 2017

Spires enlisted in the military when he was 20 years old, in 1946. He was assigned the role of a chaplain’s assistant at the Air Force Base in San Antonio and was soon promoted to the rank of sergeant. He told NBC in November that he lived a closeted life whenever he was at the base. Spires loved San Antonio and was part of a small community of other closeted gay men. But all of that changed when he went to a Halloween party dressed as the soap Oxydol, which was advertised at the time as very sparkly. So Spires dressed “very sparkly and that was taken as being in drag,” he said. “Someone at the party recognized me and said, ‘Ah-ha! He must be gay.’”

After that, the military treated him differently; officers interrogated him for weeks, asked personal questions about his life, and sent him to meet a board of inquiry every day for a week. Spires was too ashamed to tell his mother what was going on, even though she came to visit him at the same time as the trial. He said:

I had to be my own attorney. They did not furnish me an attorney because I was thought of as nothing. They were already convinced I was gay and that I was guilty. […] I can’t tell you how terrible it was. I couldn’t tell her, I can’t spend days with you because I’m on trial.

He collapsed under the pressure, and was discharged because of “undesirable habits and traits of character,” in June of 1948. He never came out to his parents, but met his husband in 1956 and married him in 2009. Rosenberg said that there was a big difference in how the military treated the two men; his husband was honorably discharged despite being gay. “It is an injustice that the military has treated Ed and me so differently, despite our equal honorable service,” he said at a press conference in November.

But finally, Spires’ will has been granted and he can relax. The couple said that they will celebrate in Florida next month. Spires said, “I’m still recovering from pneumonia but every day seems a little brighter. This is one thing less on my mind…I can smile again.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Yale Law Students Help Gay Veteran Gain New Recognition appeared first on Law Street.

Residents of the Chevy Chase neighborhood in Washington D.C. have started decking out their houses with rainbow flags. Vice President-elect Mike Pence just began renting a house there, while waiting for the move to Number One Observatory Circle that he’ll make when Trump takes office in January. The flags are “a respectful message showing, in my case, my disagreement with some of his thinking,” said neighbor Ilse Heintzen to WJLA. She said that she has gay friends and that when one neighbor suggested hanging Pride flags on their houses, she joined in.

Residents on NW Washington Street where VP Elect Pence is renting a house are sending him a symbolic message. More residents may hang flags pic.twitter.com/fldYsMoP6i

— Suzanne Kennedy (@ABC7Suzanne) November 30, 2016

Pence has been criticized for his stance on LGBT rights, including his past support of conversion therapy. A wide range of influential groups, including the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association, have denounced the practice. Over the weekend, Pence’s spokesman Marc Lotter denied that he ever was in favor of the practice. But a statement on his congressional campaign website from 2000 said that no federal funding should go to organizations that “celebrate and encourage the types of behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus.” It said that “resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior.”

In 2006, Pence supported a Constitutional amendment that would only recognize marriages between a man and a woman, and he said that same-sex marriage would lead to “societal collapse.” He was also in favor of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that prohibited military members from serving if they were openly gay. And Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act when he was governor of Indiana, which essentially allowed businesses to discriminate against LGBT people.

Many Americans are worried that the new government could overturn the progress the LGBT community has made in recent years. But D.C. isn’t going down without a fight. According to local media there are about six flags up in the D.C. neighborhood, but more are on the way. “I have no idea what [the Vice-President Elect] will think about, but I hope he will change his mind,” said Heintzen. “This is one way that I can show my disagreement.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rainbow Pride Flags Pop Up in Mike Pence’s New Neighborhood appeared first on Law Street.

News broke this morning that President Barack Obama is planning on declaring Stonewall Inn and the immediately surrounding area in New York City as a national monument. The monument would commemorate the struggles of the gay rights movement, and recognize the 1969 arrests and protests at the Stonewall Inn as an early flashpoint for the movement.

Details are still being ironed out, but the official announcement from Obama could come as soon as next month. Officials, including Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, National Park Service Director Jonathan B. Jarvis and Representative Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., are going to be holding a hearing on the proposal to gain feedback, and the federal government is working out details with the city.

The Stonewall Inn was a bar in Greenwich Village (while the structure still stands, the bar has moved into a separate building next door.) In the late 1960s it was a well known hotspot for LGBT individuals, particularly gay men, and on June 28, 1969, it was raided by the police. Keep in mind this was a totally different era–for example, the Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas that struck down sodomy laws didn’t happen for almost 35 years. Patrons could be arrested for wearing full drag, or lacking identification. Women at the bar had to wear “three items of feminine clothing” or they could be arrested as well.

The night of June 28, the raid didn’t go according to plan and riots and protests broke out. The protests continued for the rest of the week, making city-wide and national news. Stonewall is now viewed by many as the birthplace of the modern gay rights movement. It already has New York City landmark status, and according to Salon was the first “site in the city designated as a landmark for its role in LGBT history.”

The dedication of Stonewall as a monument has had significant support from both of New York’s Senators–Senator Chuck Schumer and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand have introduced legislation to that effect. Schumer stated:

It’s time for the Stonewall Inn to take its place in the panoply of sites and events that were sparks in the march to the kind of freedom and equality that is the very wellspring of the American Dream. Making the Stonewall Inn site a unit of the National Park system is the right thing to do.

Gillibrand’s sentiments were similar; in a statement released by her office she opined:

Whether it’s the right to marry the person you love, or the repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ we’ve come so far in the push for equal rights. It’s past due for a national monument honoring the legacy and events that took place at Stonewall and the L.G.B.T. rights movement in our country.

Unless something comes up, it looks likely that Obama could name Stonewall as a national monument next month–a fitting month given Stonewall’s history.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will the Stonewall Inn Become an Official National Monument? It Looks Very Likely appeared first on Law Street.

Update: 10:30am June 25, 2015

Two high-profile decisions will impact millions of lives this month, including millions of millennials, as the U.S. Supreme Court issues its opinions on ObamaCare and same-sex marriage. These cases face what many regard as the most conservative court in decades, but center on two of the most prominent and progressive social justice movements in decades. At a recent Center for American Progress (CAP) event focused on the important cases of this term, I was able to hear the implications of these cases, and they’re definitely worth our attention. In the justices’ hands rests the future and stability of the American health care system and legality of marriage equality for all. The stakes couldn’t be higher this month, and that’s exactly why you should be informed of what’s going on. Here’s a breakdown—in plain English—of what you need to know:

King v. Burwell: Battle Over ObamaCare

Just because you’re young and healthy doesn’t mean you don’t need health insurance, and this particular court case will definitely impact young people. A little background is important to grasp how, though. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law in March 2010. It established health insurance exchanges–marketplaces that facilitate the purchase of health insurance in each state. Exchanges provide a set of government-regulated, standardized health care plans from which individuals may purchase health insurance policies. If the individual has a limited income, the exchange allows that person to obtain premium assistance (AKA: premium subsidies) to lower the monthly cost of the health care plan, making the plan affordable.

The ACA provides states three options for the establishment of exchanges: state run exchanges, a partnership with the federal government, or complete federal control of the exchange within the state. In 2014, appellants in Virginia, D.C., Oklahoma, and Indiana argued that premium subsidies are only available under a state-run exchange, citing one clause that says that premium subsidies are available “through an Exchange established by the state.” Using this phrase, litigants argue that the ACA provides premium assistance exclusively to individuals purchasing health care on state-run exchanges.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument, saying that the context of the phrase reveals that Congress obviously intended for the subsidies to apply in all exchanges. But in July 2014 David King, a Virginia resident, and his co-plaintiffs  petitioned the Supreme Court and in November, the court agreed to accept the case. Oral arguments were in March 2015 and in June the outcome will be released, which has the potential to strike a detrimental blow to the Affordable Care Act. Since the ACA was signed into law, thirty-four states chose not to set up their own exchange marketplace and instead allow the federal government to operate the exchange, accounting for 75 percent of the people nationwide who qualify for premium subsidies. If the Supreme Court reverses the previous decisions and rules that only state-run exchanges qualify for premium assistance, that 75 percent will no longer be considered eligible for assistance. If the Court rules against the Obama Administration this month, about 6.4 million Americans could lose their health care premiums.

"Nearly 1 in 3 uninsured Americans have already been covered—more than 16 million people" —@POTUS #ACAWorks pic.twitter.com/rXVNHrkiW1

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 9, 2015

But there’s no certainty which way this will go. At the panel discussion on Monday at CAP, Elizabeth G. Taylor, Executive Director at the National Health Law Program expressed her skepticism of the Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case. “What I fear is that not only do we not have an activist court, but that it is standing in the way of efforts by publicly-elected officials to name and address social problems.” Ian Millhiser, Senior Fellow at CAP, argued that the King v. Burwell case is the “weakest argument that I have ever heard reach the Supreme Court.”

It’s especially important to keep in mind that young people will be disproportionately impacted by a SCOTUS ruling against Obamacare; over 2.2 million enrollees are between the ages of 18-34, making millennials the largest group insured under the ACA. For example, a decision against the ACA could cause young people under the age of 26 (who are automatically covered under their parents’ plans, thanks to ObamaCare) to lose their health care plans if their parents can no longer afford health insurance without federal subsidies. Whether or not SCOTUS protects those Americans remains to be seen.

Obergefell v. Hodges: Marriage Equality’s Latest Frontier

Obergefell v. Hodges will decide whether or not states are required to license a marriage between same-sex couples, as well as if states are required to recognize a lawfully licensed, out-of-state marriage between two people of the same sex.

Obergefell v. Hodges – the case #SCOTUS is considering, whether #LGBT couples have a constitutional right to marry http://t.co/FCJ6yo0ZGD

— V R Gaitonde (@weareji) June 9, 2015

Again, this decision will be important for young people, particularly because of the part we’ve played in the debate. Of Americans under age 50, 73 percent believe in marriage equality. Roberta A. Kaplan, Partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, stated at the CAP event Monday that the arguments in favor of marriage equality have remained the same over the years, but what has changed is the ability of judges to hear those arguments. “There’s no doubt that what made this change is the American public,” she said. While the Supreme Court does not exist to respond to the public, it certainly appears to be aware of the momentum behind the marriage equality movement. Just weeks after Ireland became the first country to legalize same-sex marriage on a national level by popular vote, SCOTUS will issue an opinion that could put the U.S. in the same progressive bracket as 18 other countries, allowing same-sex couples to marry nationwide.

Regardless of the decision though, the fight for equality won’t be over. Let’s say the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality both ways. States will be required to marry same-sex couples and recognize marriages performed out of state. But the next concern for these couples is the potential for more subtle discrimination. “Same sex couples will be allowed to marry but states will be able to discriminate in other ways,” warned Millhiser. Losing jobs, healthcare, or being denied housing and loans without explicitly stated homophobic motivations are classic examples of discrimination that could very well be implemented on the state level by authorities who are adamantly against same-sex marriage. If the ruling does come out in favor of gay couples, increasing skepticism is a must to keep unlawful, prejudiced actions in check.

Both of these cases have a lot on the line, although obviously for very different reasons. Michele L. Jawando, Vice President of Legal Progress at CAP said, “I would like to believe that the court is paying attention, and I do believe that the American people have a role to play when it comes to these decisions.” This is where you come in. Speaking loudly and acting louder can truly change the course of history. Lobbying Congress, rallying for your cause, educating yourself and speaking out to educate the public on the importance of these issues are crucial methods of putting public and political pressure on the justices. I’d like to believe that the American Constitution is a living and breathing document that transforms throughout history, expanding to encompass progressive views and constantly redefining what it means to be an American; let’s hope I feel the same way at the end of June.

Update: 10:30am June 25, 2015: 

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Two Supreme Court Cases We Should All Be Watching appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday, gay and bisexual men participated in the second annual National Gay Blood Drive. The drive’s goal was to call attention to the FDA’s lifetime blood donor deferral for all men who have had sex with another man, in place since 1977. Despite the national attention that it received, the first gay blood drive last summer did little to sway the FDA and the ban remained. Organizations such as the American Red Cross, America’s Blood Centers, and the American Association of Blood Banks have all spoken out in support of easing blood donor restrictions. They say that they all, “believe the current lifetime deferral for men who have had sex with other men should be modified and that donor deferral criteria should be made comparable with criteria for other behaviors that pose an increased risk for transmission of transfusion-transmitted infections.”

But let’s back up a bit here–why is there a restriction preventing gay men from donating blood in the first place? About three decades ago, when the AIDS crisis was in full swing, there was panic about how the HIV virus was transmitted. The restriction was put in place to prevent gay men from transmitting HIV through blood donations. But the times, and our scientific knowledge, have changed. We have had the ability to perform blood tests for nearly 30 years now, and it’s been nearly that long since we’ve had a single case of HIV via blood transfusion. The laws are also a relic of a time when it was thought that HIV was an exclusively homosexual disease–it’s since been proven that it can be passed on to anyone of any sexual orientation. That’s exactly why every sample is tested for many things, including HIV, after it is donated.

Ryan James Yezak, the drive’s organizer, wrote a passionate plea for lifting the ban this week on behalf of the Human Rights Campaign. He explained how three years ago, he wanted to go with his boss to give blood after a natural disaster. In his plea, he explained:

While I was healthy as could be, I could not donate due to the fact that I was gay. I had to explain the situation to everyone in my department. For the first time in my life, I felt like I was being treated differently solely on the basis of my sexual orientation – it felt alienating, it felt wrong, but above all – it felt unnecessary.

Yezak could not be more correct–it is unnecessary. A simple blood test and waiting period eliminates the need to categorize individual donors as a risk. The exclusion of gay and bisexual men from donating blood only propagates a stigma against which gay rights activists have spent the past 30 years fighting.

In fact, the only thing that this ban really does is cut down the number of potential blood donors, which is not something we should be doing. Blood shortages have been a major issue in the United States over the past several years.  According to the American Red Cross, more than 41,000 blood donations are needed every single day. In times of catastrophes and in the summer months when schools are no longer holding blood drives, there are major shortages of blood due to the lack of donors. ABC News reported that last year that the United States faced one of the worst shortages the Red Cross has ever seen. As Yezak explained, “to continue to exclude people despite the entirely reasonable arguments of the organizations that supply blood themselves is both discriminatory to them and harmful to everybody.” He said, “someone needs a blood donation every two seconds in the U.S., and you never know when that someone is going to be you.”

The bottom line is, we should not be turning away anyone’s blood. So long as it has been tested, there is no reason that everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, should be banned from donating. Hopefully the second annual National Gay Blood drive will prompt the FDA to lift this outdated and discriminatory ban.

—

Brittany Alzfan (@BrittanyAlzfan) is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Matt Buck via Flickr]

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The National Gay Blood Drive: A Call for Change appeared first on Law Street.

Several LGBT rights groups have withdrawn their support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that would ban employers from refusing to hire or discriminating against workers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. A coalition of groups that support LGBT rights, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Lambda Legal, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, is leading the charge away from the ENDA. This comes as a surprise, given that ENDA previously had strong support from these same groups. They are pulling support from a bill they have long worked to pass for only one reason–the recent ruling in the Hobby Lobby case. The problem is that they may be overreacting.

Since the ruling was handed down in the Hobby Lobby case, there have been misinterpretations of the case from both sides of the aisle. The liberal side of the debate has rallied behind Justice Ginsburg’s dissent, saying that the “floodgates” have been opened for religious freedom suits. That argument is the reason why so many LGBT groups have removed their support for the ENDA. They fear that corporations who wish to discriminate will be able to sue under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the same way that Hobby Lobby did. They are scared that the Supreme Court could rule that a religious corporation not being allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexuality is a violation of RFRA. I understand this fear, excellently articulated here by our blogger Chris Copeland, but I think that they are simply overreacting to Justice Ginsburg’s dissent. The ruling itself was very narrow and will likely never serve as a precedent for sexual discrimination.

How am I so sure of this? Let’s put it this way, these suits will almost definitely not happen as long as Justice Anthony Kennedy remains the swing vote on the Supreme Court. Kennedy did vote with the majority on Hobby Lobby, but it is clear from his concurring opinion that his vote came with some serious strings attached. Kennedy implied that he only voted the way he did because of the narrowness of the case. He believed in this specific instance that the least-restrictive means test was not met, and pointed out that the government already allowed exceptions for non-profit corporations. The court’s ruling made it clear that the decision only applies to a religious exception for the contraceptive mandate, and that all other potential religious exceptions must be evaluated individually. Simply put, Hobby Lobby is not an invitation to use the RFRA to allow sexual discrimination.

If a case arguing that job discrimination should be allowed under the RFRA ever made it to the Supreme Court, there is no way Kennedy would vote to allow it. There are several reasons for this. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, a case that ruled any law prohibiting sexual acts between members of the same sex in private was unconstitutional. He also authored the opinion in United States v. Windsor, the ruling that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. Kennedy has long defended the rights of the LGBT community and I do not think he would change his mind if a corporation sued to use RFRA as a basis for legal sexual discrimination. The government banning sexual discrimination would meet the least-restrictive means test, while the contraceptive mandate did not, a distinction that would surely be important to Kennedy.

It’s sad to see these LGBT groups end their support for the ENDA. It is still a law that could do a lot of good. Any challenge to the ENDA under the guise of religious freedom would almost certainly turn out differently than the Hobby Lobby case, but with support being pulled from the law, it will probably never become an issue.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Ted Eytan via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LGBT Rights Groups Pulling Support for ENDA in Light of Hobby Lobby Ruling appeared first on Law Street.

The British Columbia Law Society just voted 3,210 to 968 to reverse its  April decision accrediting the new Trinity Western University Law School. The original accreditation decision came under fire because Trinity has a Christian covenant that serves as a mandatory contract students and staff are required to sign. The problem with this covenant? It blatantly discriminates against the LGBT community.

Under the covenant, all school affiliates are prohibited from a sexual relationship “that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.” If they are found to have violated this covenant, or even fail to report violations by fellow students or staff, they may be expelled or terminated. The school has used a freedom of religion argument to defend its offensive and harsh rule.

In the most recent vote, 77 percent of the BC Law Society voted against TWU Law receiving accreditation, and although this vote is non-binding, it definitely affects the final decision. The BC Law Society is not alone in protesting the school’s covenant. The Law Society of Upper Canada in Ontario also voted against the accreditation. The Nova Scotia Barristers Society only granted conditional acceptance; the terms of that acceptance were that TWU either changes the covenant or gives students the option to not sign it.

TWU contends that its freedom of religion allows it to enact this covenant, and even launched court actions in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and Ontario to defend it. Statements made by the institution have gone so far as to say that the provincial law societies rejecting the school’s accreditation are denying the concept that lawyers can participate in society while holding any religious beliefs. They also argue that the rulings are based solely ony public opinion, making them inherently unfair. But three different provincial law societies amount to thousands of votes, which seems like a very popular opinion, so the school’s argument seems a bit far fetched to me.

A similar case came before the Canadian Supreme Court in 2001 concerning the accreditation of TWU’s graduates and the court ruled in the school’s favor. Bob Kunn, Trinity’s president, even used this fact as a defense for the school’s covenant, saying, “the Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in the country, comprised of the best legal minds, and their decisions should be respected.” I find this point especially laughable given that the school’s covenant is discriminating against an entire community that has been protected by that same court for eleven years. How can Trinity preach about freedom of religion when it forces students and staff to sign a contract that specifies their personal beliefs and punish students for violating the beliefs it deems correct?

Even more alarming is what this covenant could mean for Trinity’s future law graduates. In my eyes, this anti-gay covenant promotes further discrimination beyond just school enrollment. It has the potential to subliminally teach graduates that the LGBT community is somehow not worth their time as lawyers. Even worse, these future lawyers may have an extra barrier to employment in British Columbia, where gay marriage is now commonplace.

It is important to note that Trinity Western is not alone in its initiative to exclude the LGBT community from enrollment. In the United States, the supremely Christian Liberty University earned fifth place on a list of the top five most conservative schools in the United States. In addition to teaching youth earth creationism, the school also bans the admission of openly gay students. Many other universities with anti-gay policies, such as Patrick Henry College, are home to a silent underground LGBT community. Queerphc is a blog specifically dedicated to gay Patrick Henry students that states, “Patrick Henry College maintains a requirement of non-advocacy for enrolled students in regards to LGBTQ issues.”

Although this discriminatory spirit against homosexual and transgender students exists all over North America, the tides seem to be changing for the better in America. President Obama just announced that he will sign an executive order prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination. Many people, myself include, haven’t paid much attention to this announcement because frankly, we thought it was already established. Although there’s plenty of progress that needs to be made, both the US and Canada are on the right track in most respects. Hopefully Canada can take a lesson from its southern neighbor, use its constitutional history of LGBT acceptance as a basis, and show Trinity Western that discrimination in any form is both illegal and wrong.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Syowoe via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Canadian Law Societies Reject Trinity Western’s Anti-Gay Policies appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, citizens in both Washington, DC and Salt Lake City, Utah, poured out to celebrate gay pride at annual parades in their respective cities. In DC the mood was good. Jake Hudson, a DC local and 27-time parade attendee, actually sat it out this year, claiming this was because he was more than happy with the District’s stance on gay rights. But in Salt Lake City, the exact opposite happened. This year’s participants faced resistance from an unexpected and shameful source — the police department. An unnamed police officer refused his assignment to protect parade supporters and ensure safety. Although the Salt Lake City Police Department condemned his choice, the officer still serves as a prime example of Utah’s history of anti-gay rights legislation.

Gay Rights in Utah

Utah’s predominantly Mormon constituency tends to argue against same-sex marriage. Although some progressive groups in the community now openly support LGBT initiatives, the more conservative majority remains dominant. For this reason, gay rights legislation in Utah has had little success and far too many failures. Utah’s gay community has seen no substantial legislative victories, with the exception of a 17-day lift on Utah’s same-sex marriage ban last December. LGBT couples in Utah are even prohibited from adopting children.

Gay Rights in DC

On the other side of the country, DC’s LGBT community has won countless political gains. Gay and lesbian couples have had the right to marry since 2009, and they won the right to adopt, use IVF, and hire surrogates in March 2013. In addition to these major legislative wins, the community is protected from hate crimes and sexual orientation discrimination. DC is the poster-child for gay and lesbian rights in the U.S. “I hate to say it, but we have just about everything we could want,” said Hudson.

The mayoral race in DC pretty much proves the fact that choosing a candidate based solely on shallow prejudices is no longer acceptable. There is both an openly gay candidate, Independent David A. Catania, and a candidate with a history of strong support for LGBT causes, Democrat Muriel Bowser. Based on their platforms, it is clear that both candidates would be more than willing to pass pretty much any LGBT legislation that comes their way. For example, Bowser vowed to vote against Mayor Grey’s DC United soccer stadium proposal that would have displaced the DC LGBT Center. She also hired Bo Shuff, an openly gay campaign manager who has worked in the past for the LGBT rights groups Equality Ohio and the Human Rights Campaign. Therefore, DC’s LGBT community is focusing more on the more day-to-day policies of each candidate, rather than choosing the one candidate who might be in favor of extending gay rights. Nonetheless, all the advancements inside the District mean much more when you pair them with the lack thereof  in Utah. DC’s equality-driven environment is a prime example for the rest of the country  to emulate.

In a dichotomy such as this, where two sides of the country differ so drastically on such a prominent issue as gay rights, the only solution can be found in education and dialogue. There may still be a chance to encourage Utah’s youth to join the cause, while it may prove harder to change the minds of the state’s older constituents. Perhaps those who made the DC movement so successful could shift their efforts toward the country’s less progressive states.

Although it is undeniably frustrating to see two sides of a single country be so out of sync with each other, it is important to remember that social change across independent states never happens simultaneously. The horribly slow civil rights process in the South in the fifties and sixties is often blamed on tradition and prejudice. It’s fair to say the same thing is happening with gay rights in conservative areas of the country.

But there is hope in the region. Both Colorado, Utah’s neighbor, and Washington, are very progressive on many issues, ranging from the legalization of marijuana to voting for President Obama in 2012. Washington, Oregon, California, and New Mexico have already established legal gay marriage, sparking a dialogue in Utah’s western region. Like dominos, the spread of liberal causes is influenced by neighboring states. Hopefully the Utah domino is soon to follow.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Guillaume Paumier via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DC and Salt Lake City Gay Pride Parades Reveal National Split on LGBT Rights appeared first on Law Street.

A new bill placed on Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s desk had me looking at the calendar to make sure we’re still living in 2014. On Monday, February 24, 2014 the Arizona State Legislature passed a bill that would allow companies to deny services to gays and others on ‘religious grounds’. Other Arizonians, despite their conservatism, spoke out against the measure, and various groups lobbied the governor to veto the bill. Both of Arizona’s Republican senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake, tweeted that they hoped Brewer would veto the measure. Thankfully, the veto came on Wednesday, February 26.

It seems unusual for an executive to veto legislation coming from a legislature dominated by their  own party. Arizona’s government is dominated by the GOP, both in the state legislature as well in the governor’s office. However, this was no ordinary bill: in fact, even some of the original supporters and drafters were having second thoughts about the potential consequences of the radical legislation. They noted that the bill’s final product was not what they originally intended and believed that its passage would cause the state “immeasurable harm.” 

Here are three reasons why it is important that Brewer vetoed the bill: 

1. It’s just bad business.

If the law passed, Arizona could have lost out on bringing new business and capital to the state. Representatives from Apple and American Airlines, two major companies that planned to build new operations in Arizona, wrote to Brewer to express deep concern about the bill’s effects and stated that they would relocate their new facilities elsewhere. And there was potential for many more companies to react the same way. 

Governor Brewer’s state had already experienced economic backlash due to the implementation of another controversial policy. After the state passed its notorious immigration law in 2010, Arizona’s economy lost about $140 million in business and tourism revenue. Moreover, the state is slated to host next year’s Superbowl, but the NFL has already publicly criticized the bill and could potentially threaten relocation of the game. Again, this wouldn’t be the first time — Arizona lost its ability to host the 1993 Superbowl because it failed to recognize Martin Luther King, Jr. day as a national holiday. Both of these experiences showed Brewer the economic danger of passing controversial legislation.

2. The bill misinterpreted religious freedom.

Supporters of the bill, SB-1062, argued that it was intended to better protect religious freedom. Doug Napier, an attorney representing the Alliance Defending Freedom, commented after the veto: “Today’s veto enables the foes of faith to more easily suppress the freedom of the people of Arizona.” However, the grounds on which the legislation’s supporters argued that the bill enhanced personal religious freedom are not supported. If enacted into law, the bill would have changed Arizona’s religious exercise clause to allow citizens and businesses to refuse services to a specific group of people.

The drafters of the bill incorrectly applied the notion of freedom of religion. The First Amendment states that freedom of religion is guaranteed to all Americans to freely practice their beliefs without persecution or discrimination. What freedom of religion was not intended for, however, was the imposition of one’s religious beliefs on another. It is understood that practitioners of some religions may oppose homosexuality due to the teachings of their faith, but that does not mean that services can be denied to gay Americans because of someone’s religious beliefs. The fact that someone identifies as anything other than heterosexual should not impact someone else’s practice of religion, and therefore to say that freedom of religion supports the Arizona bill is simply wrong.

3. And of course, the bill was highly discriminatory toward gay Americans.

If signed into law, SB-1062 would have allowed gay Americans and others to be denied services just because of who they are. These people would have been discriminated against because of their personal identities — something that cannot be changed. It is no different than denying someone services because of his or her race or ethnicity. In fact, the bill would have violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which declares that states cannot limit the rights and privileges of American citizens. The bill would have limited the rights and privileges of gay Americans, and thus would have inflicted discrimination on a group of citizens in Arizona.

Because Brewer vetoed the bill, citizens in Arizona will not be forced to comply with the discriminatory law. However, the fact that the legislature passed it in the first place is deeply troubling. 

[New York Times] [Bloomberg] [NBC] [CNN] [FJC]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Mel Green via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Brewer’s Choice: Why the Veto Was the Only Option appeared first on Law Street.

In a speech on Saturday, February 8, 2014 to a gay rights group in New York City, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. outlined the plan for the United States government to extend legal rights to same sex couples in order to decrease the inequalities between gay and straight marriages. “In every courthouse in every proceeding, and in every place where a member of the Department of Justice stands on behalf of the United States, they will strive to ensure that same-sex marriages receive the same privileges, protections, and rights as opposite sex marriages,” promised Holder to the gay community.

The latest changes applied to protect same-sex married couples include:

1. Same-sex spouses are eligible to file jointly for bankruptcy, providing joint relief from debts. This excludes debts of one spouse owed to another or former spouse, which will still need to be paid as well as domestic support obligations.

2. Federal inmates who are in same-sex marriages will have the same rights and privileges as those in heterosexual marriages, including the rights to visitation, to be with the other spouse in times of crisis, to be escorted to the funeral of an inmate spouse, protection of communication between same-sex spouses, and the early release of an inmate if the spouse becomes debilitated.

3. Individuals in same-sex marriages now qualify for multiple Justice Department Benefit Programs including the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, as well as benefits offered to spouses exposed to radiation.

4. Death and educational benefits in the case that one spouse is killed or injured in the line of duty as a public safety officer.

5. The right to decline to give testimony against a spouse in civil and criminal cases. This will be applicable to all states, even those that do not extend this right to same-sex couples.

Multiple agencies falling under the Department of Justice are affected by this extension of privileges, including the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, the Bureau of alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

These privileges can be seen as an extension to the Supreme Court case decided in June 2013, United States vs. Windsor, which struck down the idea that same-sex couples could not receive federal marital benefits under the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Finally, the conclusion of this case is being applied within the justice system, as same-sex couples are receiving the benefits they deserve within a legal marriage.

This extension of legal rights to same-sex couples was made official on February 10, 2014 through a policy memorandum. These privileges immediately ensure that all same-sex married couples are treated equally under the law.

In the larger picture, this extension has amounted to a step closer to equality in our country. These are provisions that all heterosexual couples are granted and it seems absurd to consider being married without such security. The fact that one spouse in a same-sex marriage could be killed in the line of duty and the other was previously not granted death benefits is almost unethical. A marriage should always include such protection in cases of death, imprisonment, and criminal offenses. The extension of these privileges  by the government has made real the marriage vows that many same-sex couples have promised to one another, allowing them to support each other whatever circumstances they may face. If marriage is granted to same-sex couples, the benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples should also be extended.

[La Times] [New York Times] [SCOTUSblog]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013)

Featured image courtesy of [Marc Love via Flickr]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 5 Ways Same-Sex Couples Are Finally Winning in the Justice System appeared first on Law Street.

I love the Olympics. I always have. Summer or winter, it doesn’t matter. I will dutifully watch hours of Olympic coverage, get weirdly into obscure sports (curling!!!!!!) and stay up until ridiculous hours to watch my favorite games. That being said, the Olympics aren’t just all about fun. Over the years, the games have served, often unwillingly, as a backdrop for powerful political statements. For example, the American 1980 Summer Games boycott and resulting Soviet Union 1984 Summer Games boycott were both obviously politically motivated. Individual athletes can also turn the Olympics political — the 1968 Olympic Games Black Power salute by Tommie Smith and John Carlos made headlines and eventually got the two spectacular athletes banned from that year’s Olympic games.

Controversies in the Olympics are common, but this year’s games in Sochi seem particularly fraught. Here are the five most important political and social reasons to care.

5. Stray Dogs

Sochi is home to a lot of stray dogs. Nice, stray dogs, like peoples’ abandoned pets, or the offspring of those pets. According to passersby, most of the dogs seem quite friendly.  But I guess it looks bad to just have stray dogs wandering the Olympic grounds, so the Russian government paid a firm to have them rounded up and killed. The firm hired to do so called the dogs “biological trash.” This move sparked international outrage, people are now trying to adopt these dogs, and a Russian billionaire and big time Putin supporter is actually donating a ton of money to save the dogs.

Now I have…conflicting thoughts on the issue. Don’t get me wrong, I was incredibly outraged by the attempt to kill the dogs. I love dogs — they’re hands down my favorite animal, and come on, how can you resist a face like this?

I’m horrified that they would try to kill the dogs, and I would love for those dogs to be saved, but there is something amazing about the global reaction to Russia’s attempt to kill the stray dogs. This Guardian piece sums it up well, but case in point is that people do seem to care more about dogs than humans. There have been numerous stories of human rights abuses, yet this Sochi-stray-dogs story has made tons of headlines. I love the dogs too, and it breaks my heart that any would be killed, but it’s concerning that people are so focused on this issue. My best guess is that it’s easier to take a stand against animal abuse than more contentious political issues, such as…

4. The Ukraine Conflict 

While the Olympics happen, everyone is kind of tacitly ignoring the fact that there’s a major civil conflict going on essentially next door in the Ukraine. For all intents and purposes, Russia’s next step in the conflict has been on “hold” — most pundits are speculating that they will wait until the games are over to make a big move. So far, the entire conflict has been thoroughly messy though, and not just in the Ukraine. It’s become an almost miniature proxy war between the US and the EU and Russia. And believe me, both sides have the potential to play dirty. Russia is the most likely culprit to have leaked an incredibly embarrassing voicemail from a US diplomat dissing the EU. It seems like as soon as these Olympics end, things will start getting global in the Ukraine.

I think it actually says a lot about the symbolic power of the Olympic games (especially games set in Sochi) that Russia, the United States, and others, are willing to put some political maneuvers on hold.

3. Irina Rodnina 

Irina Rodnina was a prolific figure skater when she was younger, and now she is a Russian political figure. As one of the country’s most recognizable winter athletes, she was a seemingly natural choice to light the torch. But after Rodnina’s name was announced, it came to light that she had retweeted this disgustingly racist and obviously doctored photo this fall (as seen below in journalist Terry Moran’s tweet).
https://twitter.com/TerryMoran/statuses/431870114258878464

Rodnina wouldn’t even apologize at first. She just said that “Freedom of speech is freedom.” More recently, she claimed that she was hacked, although she had never said so in the past. But even after the tweet was discovered, Russia made no effort to get her to apologize or remove her from the torchbearer’s post.

2. The Economy

As much as I love the Olympics, this is a point that I will make every time the Games occur in a non-major city (and sometimes even when they do occur in a big city). Before any Olympic games, the infrastructure gets ridiculously built up, and often after the Olympics end, the new buildings, hotels, and stadiums are abandoned. Here is an incredibly creepy collection of pictures from abandoned Olympic villages.

The Olympics provide a big economic boost, but after that, nothing. That’s a facet of every Olympic games. But the Sochi games have taken extravagance to a whole new level, and in a medium-size city like Sochi (52nd largest in Russia), things had to be built completely from scratch. Supposedly protected natural habitats of animals were destroyed, and an entire village had to be relocated. Like I said, I love the Olympics, but the pragmatist in me wonders if the cost is worth it, and I have never wondered about that more so than during the Sochi games.

1. Gay Rights

This shouldn’t come as a surprise, but obviously Russia’s attack on gay rights is the biggest political story of these Olympics. As has been demonstrated over the last few months, being gay in Russia is incredibly difficult and oppressive. We’ve heard these stories for a long time, but the international spotlight on Russia this winter has given them a particularly haunting voice. President Obama and Vice President Biden, French President Hollande, and Canadian Prime Minister Harper, among others, have all declined to attend. In general, the Olympic games in Sochi have shed light on the human rights violations that occur there, and led to international pressure, but so far there’s been no real tangible signs of change. If the international community, the United States included, is serious about helping the very real problems of the LGBT community in Russia, the pressure on the country needs to increase substantially. Otherwise, the issue will be forgotten, as so many international causes have, and that’s just not acceptable.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [U.S. Army via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Top 5 Reasons to Care About the Sochi Olympics appeared first on Law Street.

Jury duty is dreaded by many who feel as if they would prefer to be anywhere else besides performing their civic duty within the court. While many of us take this right for granted thinking of it more as a chore than an opportunity, we should stop to consider the alternative. How would you feel if you were denied the opportunity to participate in national governing, a right that is meant to be granted to all American citizens? Over the course of our nation’s history, several groups of citizens have been discriminated against with regard to jury service. In many cases, the Supreme Court has moved to fix these inequalities within our governmental system. For example, the 1896 Batson v. Kentucky case eliminated racial discrimination in jury selection and ratification of the 19th amendment eliminated discrimination of gender, giving opportunities to women to sit on a jury. In some ways, the courts have improved in their previously discriminatory practices. However, the discrimination of juror candidates based on sexual orientation has not been addressed until recently.

On Tuesday, January 22, 2014, the 9th Circuit United States Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, became the first appellate court to specifically rule that a potential juror cannot be removed during jury selection because of sexual orientation. This decision will extend the 1896 ruling of Batson v. Kentucky, mentioned above, not only in prohibiting the discrimination of jurors based on race, but sexual orientation as well. The three-judge panel was unanimous in their decision, saying that not choosing a juror because he or she is gay is a form of unlawful discrimination.

The basis for this new decision stems from the 9th Circuit case, Smithkline Beecham Corporation v. Abbott Laboratories, an antitrust trial over the price of a popular HIV drug. This case arose from a lawsuit filed in 2007, when Abbott increased the price of the drug Norvir, used by Smithkline in their creation of AIDS drugs. During the screening of potential jurors for the case, an Abbott lawyer utilized one of his preemptory challenges to remove a possible juror who had referred to his male partner multiple times during voir dire. Pointing fingers throughout the case, Smithkline accused Abbott of removing the possible juror due to the negative publicity that accompanied the increased pricing of the AIDS drug throughout the gay community. Abbott denied this accusation, stating the reason for the removal of the juror was due to the death of his friend from AIDS.

When questioned directly, the lawyer said that he was unaware that the juror, referred to as Juror B, was gay. However, Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the 9th Circuit panel said that this claim by the Abbott lawyer was “inconsistent with the record.” The lawyer asked Juror B five questions in total throughout the prescreening process. Judge Reinhardt felt that when questioning Juror B, the lawyer “failed to question him meaningfully about his impartiality or potential biases.” Instead, the Abbott lawyer simply assumed that this potential juror would impartially evaluate the case due to his sexual orientation. In reality it was not correctly discerned whether the Juror would have actually been biased or not. Judge Reinhardt was deeply upset by the presumed discrimination of a juror based on sexual orientation, saying, “gays and lesbians have been systematically excluded from the most important institutions of self governance.”

Eventually, the jurors who were seated at the Smithkline Beecham Corporation v. Abbott Laboratories case ruled in favor of Abbott. However, due to the removal of one potential juror because of his sexual orientation, the 2011 verdict was overturned and the 9th Circuit ordered a new trial, showing that this one simple removal of a juror contains many civic ramifications. Homosexuals will now have more protection within the courts, and hopefully this sphere of equality will decrease discrimination within the legal system and professional world as well.

It is our individual right to be granted a jury of our peers and many of our peers are, in fact, gay, lesbian or of different sexual orientations. It is about time that this basic civil right be extended to include not only those of different races and genders but differing sexual orientations as well.

[abajournal] [washingtonpost] [blogs.findlaw]

Featured Image Courtesy of [Jarek Tuszynski via Wikipedia]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Potential Jurors Can No Longer Be Discriminated Against Due To Sexual Orientation appeared first on Law Street.

Six months out of law school, I’m finding myself starting over personally, professionally, and even socially.  Some, but not all, of my friends totally understand where I’m coming from with regard to this sentiment.  One of these friends is Drake (naturally, because we’re both half-Jewish, Canadian former child stars turned world-famous rappers).  You didn’t know?

You guys! I double majored!

When I started work after college, I was really at the bottom of the bottom.  I accepted my status because I only had a bachelor’s degree.  Not just any kind of Bachelor’s Degree- A bachelor of Arts.  The B.A. in 2013 is like…a three legged puppy.  It’s cute and it has endless possibilities, but its path takes a little bit longer. A lot of people can be successful with them, but most of us have to spend two to four additional (miserable) years in graduate programs so that our salaries can catch up to our lifestyles.  And by most of us, I mean liberal arts majors.

“What are these lifestyles,” you ask? Oh, you know, just trying to live in a nice apartment with MAYBE one roommate, while still being able to afford things like food, clothing, entertainment, and repayments to a horrible woman named Sallie Mae.  (If you haven’t met her yet, trust me when I say she’s garbage).

I’m super anti-guns, and this is NOT a literal interpretation of how I feel about educational debt. It’s close though.

I’ve got a J.D. and I’m working! #Winning!

Trying to rediscover having nights and weekends to myself is tricky.  Knowing that there are no more winter, spring, and summer breaks is depressing. Contemplating grown-up stuff like 401Ks, a savings account, and navigating the treacherous terrain that is a Thursday night happy hour is stressful. We’re at the bottom, and trying to get to wherever the heck “here” is located. Or at least I’m not “here,” despite being a law school graduate for half a year.  Doesn’t that count for something?  Oh.  No?  Still at the bottom.

And it’s the same at work!  Let’s say you’ve gotten a new job.  Even if the job isn’t a perfect fit for you, it’s nice to be productive, learn through professional experiences, and become a cog that helps your organization continue to be a well-oiled machine.

However, there is a lot of bureaucracy in certain jobs, and a lot of steps that are necessary solely because that’s how it’s been done in the past.  Sometimes these steps aren’t helpful, and are relics of a different time.  In other words, they suck.

Law School Prepared Me for this…right?

In 2013, I’m not sure if I need sexual harassment training to let me know that it’s inappropriate to call a female co-worker “baby” or “honey,” and I definitely don’t need to be reminded that I shouldn’t offer said female co-worker a massage.  I’m not Don Draper. Also, the Friends episode where Chandler’s boss kept slapping him on the butt taught me all I need to know about where my hands can and cannot go.

Conversely, there isn’t training with regard to other types of workplace discrimination. The Senate recently passed an anti-bias gay-rights bill.  This bill seeks to combat the lack of explicit protections with regard to sexual orientation in the workplace. Areas like this are where employers should be putting their training muster, methinks.  BUT WHO AM I?

I can’t suggest that! I’m the new guy.  I sit quietly and listen to all of the banter that definitely would NOT pass the “safe space” test of my small, liberal arts college. Alas, I ride the wave until I move up the totem pole.  You know…”here.”

And when being at the bottom gets to be too much, just say to yourself, “just hold on, we’re going home.”

See? Just like Drake.

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy.

Featured image courtesy of [ken Sutherland via Flickr]

[.gifs provided by @tkylemac and MTV Buzzworthy, duh.]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Started from the Bottom, Now We’re…Where? appeared first on Law Street.

In a letter to a congressional subcommittee on Nov. 21, American Bar Association President (ABA) James Silkenat voiced his support for the Restore Honor to Service Members Act, a bill that would upgrade the statuses of gay and lesbian veterans discharged under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT.)

Addressing chairman Joe Wilson and ranking member Susan Davis of the Armed Services Committee, Silkenat characterized the bill as comprising “the final steps necessary to bring about an end to the unfortunate remnants of [DADT],” adding, “this legislation is crucial for the thousands of our veterans who are still experiencing the consequences of that policy and its even more oppressive predecessors.

The bill would create new panels to hear cases from veterans who, because of the discriminatory nature of previous laws, were kicked out of the armed forces. It aims not only to honor due federal benefits for those veterans, but also to remove the blemish of their discharge, and the unfair consequences incurred as a result. However, it falls short of providing monetary recompensation for lost wages and other damages.

The ABA has had a long history of supporting gay rights: first, by opposing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in 1993 when it was enacted, and later in 2010, when the organization came out in support of gay marriage. Silkenat says that, in this case, because of the “sensitive special status of the armed forces” and ABA’s relationship with the Department of Defense, he was compelled to make his stance known.

Despite its 138 cosponsors, the bill has a very slim chance of making it out of the notoriously rigid Armed Services Committee. Compounding its grim odds is the fact that, of those 138 cosponsors, only one is Republican. In the Republican-controlled House, that alone is a death sentence.

It need not be said that blatant injustices like the ones targeted in the new bill should stoke a rallying cry in the legal community. If the politicians on the Hill can’t scrub the ugly anachronism of homophobia from our society then, in the spirit of Thurgood Marshall, it seems the only thing left to do is to go “through the courts.” So, channeling my inner Stephen Colbert, I give a tip of the hat to you Mr. Silkenat, and a wag of the finger to you, House Republicans.

[ABA Journal]

—

Featured image courtesy of [DVIDSHUB/Sgt. Randall Clinton via Flickr]

Jimmy Hoover

Jimmy Hoover is a graduate of the University of Maryland College Park and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Jimmy at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ABA Lends Support to House Bill Honoring Gay Vets appeared first on Law Street.